The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[Mathetes]

CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES INSISTED ON BAPTISM


John the Baptist insisted on baptism (are we surprised?):

Matthew 3:
5Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:
4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:
3And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Christ insisted on baptism (including his own):

Matthew 3:
13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Mark 1:
9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

Mark 16:
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, [/b]Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God[/b].
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Paul insisted on baptism:

Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Galatians 3:
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Peter insisted on baptism:

Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Paul was told he must be baptized without fail, and without delay:

Acts 22:
16And now [/b]why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins[/b], calling on the name of the Lord.

Paul insisted on baptism:

Acts 16:
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Interesting quote for consideration by those who refuse to be baptised:

Luke 7:
29And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him

Baptism was an important element in the apostolic faith

When the foundation doctrines of the apostles are expounded, baptism is there:

Peter says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 2:38

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 3:19,26

Philip says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 8:36-38 (Isa. 53:10)

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 10:36,37,43,47,48

Paul says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 13:24,38,39 (Psa. 2:12; Isa. 55:6,7)

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 17:30

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 26:18,20


Note also the intimate connection between baptism and salvation:

Mark 16:
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:

Acts 16:
29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; [/b]and was baptized, he and all his, straightway[/b].

This is in absolute obedience to Mark 16:16 - word for word.

Although it may not appear so on first reading, this quote is a very powerful argument for the necessity of baptism.
If believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ was sufficient for salvation, there would have been no need for baptism.

Furthermore, it is evident that the baptism here was required as the outward sign of the inward faith. The word ‘believe’ means ‘to have faith’, and it is evident that the first act by which this man and his family were to demonstrate their faith was baptism. This is congruent with the apostolic doctrine that we are saved by faith and works.

Not faith alone, and not works alone. Nor are we saved by our works - we are saved because of our works wrought in faith.

Remember, the only works we ever do are merely an acknowledgment of the grace of God to save us from death - and what more symbolic act of God’s raising us from the dead than baptism?

Acts 10:
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

I’ve highlighted the two most important phrases, and it’s not hard to see why they are important:

Can any man forbid water?

He commanded them to be baptized.

Firstly, we see that the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’, if this is what our christian friend wishes to argue, did not prevent the baptism of water.
In fact, it was insufficient without it.

Secondly, we see that Peter commands baptism, even after these individuals have been ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit’, as you would say.

What is the meaning of this? The non-baptizing christian is at a loss to explain why his own conduct is tacitly condemned by Peter.
But to the one who understands the significance of baptism, it is clear.

The gift of the Holy Spirit was from God - it was a sign of His favour towards those on whom He bestowed His authority.
It was something God did to show His favour.

The baptism of the individual was from the individual - it was a sign of his acknowledgement of the gift of God.
It was something the individual did to acknowledge the favour of God.

The importance of the symbolism of baptism, especially in Romans 6, is really the key to the argument. It is the reason why we baptize, and the reason why the modern christian refuses to baptize.

You see, Paul tells us with painful clarity in Romans 6 that God expects our baptism to be a symbolic death.
Ask any christian today if they think that baptism with the Holy Spirit is intended to be a symbolic death, and ask what it means.

What it means, Paul tells us. It is intended to demonstrate our understanding that we must change our lives.
This, after all, is what the word ‘repent’ means. Paul is insistent that when we rise out of the waters of baptism, we are to strive to live as if we were already immortal.

The lofty height of this goal (unachievable as it is), is entirely lost on the modern christian, who sees no need for such a dramatic change of life as the apostle requires, and would never think of ‘putting off the old man’, and ‘the works of the flesh’.

In neglecting the ordinance, they have forgotten the principle which the ordinance is intended to teach - which demonstrates without doubt the vital importance of the ordinance.

 

[Mathetes]

THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS


The earliest witness to Christian baptismal practies makes it very clear that they insisted on the water baptism, by full immersion, of informed adult believers.

The earliest Christian practice and writings say nothing of infant baptism:

- Nowhere mentioned in the gospels or Acts

- Nowhere mentioned in the apostolic letters

- The Didache (between 70 and 90 AD), specifies adults who are informed believers as well as full immersion baptism)

- The first mention of it is by Tertullian - and he is specifically opposing it

Tertullian also held to full immersion baptism (he uses the Latin word for 'immerse'), and he is entirely consistent with the Didache in requiring the baptism of adults.

The Didache

CHAPTER 7
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

The earliest Church Fathers managed to get this right, and they held to it devotedly.
Later on, of course, various novel practices crept in, and new doctrines necessitated the baptism of infants, but the earliest Fathers adhered pretty well to the apostolic teaching on baptism:

Those who are about to enter baptism should pray with repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee - with allnight vigil and with the confessions of all past sins. This way they may express the meaning even of the baptism of John. The Scripture says 'They were baptized, confessing their own sins'.
Tertullian, c. 198, 3.678, 679.

Sound like infant baptism to you? How about this:

When we are going to enter the water, but a little before - in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president - we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, his pomp, and his angels.

Upon that, we are immersed (Latin: mergo, to dip, to immerse) three times, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel.
Then, when we are taken up, we tast first of all a mixture of milk and honey. Then, from that day, we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week.
Tertullian, c. 211, 3.94.

Does 'going to enter the water', and 'immersed', and 'taken up' sound like sprinkling to you?
Do these rituals sound like those expected of infants?

What did Tertullian say of infant baptism?

Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning - while they are learning where to come.
Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.

Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?

...

If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation.
Tertullian, c. 198, 3.678.

Justin Martyr is even more specific - and is an even older witness, by perhaps 70 years:

'I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making.
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow.
But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

And for this (rite) we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him *who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins*, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness.

And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.
(Justin Martyr, First Apology of Justin Martyr, Chapter 61, Christian Baptism, Vol. 1,)

Hippolytus is just as clear:

'When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: 'Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?' And the person being baptized shall say: 'I believe.'
Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once.

And then he shall say: 'Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?'

And when he says: 'I believe,' he is baptized again.
And again he shall say: 'Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?'
The person being baptized shall say: 'I believe,' and then he is baptized a third time.'
(A Baptismal Confession, Hippolytus, 3rd Century)

 

[Mathetes]

Baptism in Romans 6?

Baptism in Romans 6?

Someone was making noises about baptism in Romans 6.
I believe the argument being made was that the baptism of Romans 6 is not water baptism. HA!

Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The word Paul uses is the Greek word which means 'immerse'. It is obvious that it refers to the immersion of individuals in water, since this was the established apostolic practice - as proved by the record of the Acts.

People speak much of 'Holy Spirit baptism', but this makes a mockery of the baptismal command of Mark 16.

Christ commanded his apostles to baptize people - did that mean he was commanding them to baptize people with the Holy Spirit? What a joke! I see no one baptizing people with the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. I see numerous occasions of the baptism by full immersion in water of adult believers. It seems to me that the apostles understood very well what Christ was on about - I'm not going to fault their understanding and deny it just because someone else thinks the apostles were at fault.

What does Paul say here in Romans 6? He speaks of baptism - the established practice of the full immersion of an adult believer in water.

Full immersion. That's what it means. When you bury someone, do you just throw a bit of dirt at them? Sprinkle it on their head perhaps? Rub it gently into their skin? Or do you dig a hole, put their body into it, and fill it in? Is a buried body surrounded with dirt or not?

What about when you plant a seed? Goes in the ground does it? Or do you just put it near a bit of dirt and hope for the best?

Baptism is immersion, which is why Paul describes it as burial and planting.

The importance of the symbolism of baptism, especially in Romans 6, is really the key to the argument. It is the reason why we baptize, and the reason why the modern christian refuses to baptize.

You see, Paul tells us with painful clarity in Romans 6 that God expects our baptism to be a symbolic death. Ask any christian today if they think that baptism with the Holy Spirit is intended to be a symbolic death, and ask what it means.

What it means, Paul tells us. It is intended to demonstrate our
understanding that we must change our lives. This, after all, is what the word 'repent' means. Paul is insistent that when we rise out of the waters of baptism, we are to strive to live as if we were already immortal.

The lofty height of this goal (unachievable as it is), is entirely lost on the modern christian, who sees no need for such a dramatic change of life as the apostle requires, and would never think of 'putting off the old man', and 'the works of the flesh'.

In neglecting the ordinance, they have forgotten the principle which the ordinance is intended to teach - which demonstrates without doubt the vital importance of the ordinance.

 

[Mathetes]

While I'm here, I might as well head off the old 'Cornelius' argument...

Actually, the incident of Cornelius is an excellent example of the fact that water baptism is an ordained commandment of Christ, the obedience of which is critical to salvation - just as the obedience of any commandment of Christ is essential to salvation. If you are capable of obeying a commandment of Christ, and you actively refuse to do so, then at the Judgment Seat Christ will want to know why.

You'd better think about that one Freak...

The baptism of Cornelius was the outward sign of his inward change. It was an act of willing obedience which he performed in faith.

It was also specifically the reason why God sent Peter to him:

Acts 10:
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Cornelius is an obedient, God fearing man. What else could you ask for? A knowledge of the gospel message, and obedience to its commandments - that's what God asked for, and that's why Peter was sent.

3He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Cornelius is acknowledged to be a faithful servant of God, but...

5And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
6He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

...his life of obedience is incomplete! He is in need of more knowledge, and he must do something!

So tell me, what did Peter have Cornelius do?
He had him be baptized.

 

[Ian Day]

Kevin,

Sorry to be so long replying to your posting on page 7! I was away yesterday at my grandson, Alexander's dedication.

As you don't like red, I'll reply in loc, in italics.

Ian,

Thank you for explaining your post again. Thank you also for not using the red font this time . If I understand this correctly, and please correct me if I don't have this right, you are using the book of Hebrews to show that baptism could be sprinkling.

Yes. He promises to discuss baptism in ch. 6, and does so in ch. 9, with allusions in later chapters. Heb. 9:10 speaks of VARIOUS BAPTISMS.

First of all:
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek .

That is my point too!!!!
Because the Old Covenant Scriptures were written in Hebrew, that should be understood in Hebrew, NOT GREEK. Your Greek definitions are not relevant. Hebrews is writing about Old Covenant baptisms, and specifically mentions several. They are ALL by sprinkling.
[The only immersion baptism is that of Naaman.]
You will actually find a recipe for pickles in the discussion of the meaning of baptism in Greek.
Baptising by dipping and sprinkling is the mode derived from the Old Covenant baptisms.


The Greek word used for "baptize" (such as Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3) is "baptizo". It has the following definitions:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

There is no mention of sprinkling at all in those definitions. Let's look at Hebrews 10:22 again:

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

The Hebrew author used the term "sprinkled" as a metaphoric representation to the Hebrews due to the signifacance of the sprinkling of blood in the Old Testament and the effect that it had. Note that this is speaking about the heart (which is spiritual not physical). When it comes to our bodies, it plainly states that it is to be washed. How does the Bible define "wash"? See below:

I think you are trying to avoid saying "baptism by sprinkling is a metaphoric representation to the Hebrews due to the significance of the sprinkling of blood in the Old Testament and the effect that it had. "
Baptism by sprinkling has its significance, as you seem to understand, (even if you delete "Baptism by".)
The significance of "sprinkling" is fully explained. The significance of "washing" is not. It cannot be assumed that washing means baptism by immersion. The link of baptism with sprinkling is clearly made. Do YOU wash your body by total immersion, or in the shower?

Acts 8:38-39

38) So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

39) Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

If sprinkling was acceptable for baptism, why didn't Philip fill up a cup or something and pour it over him? It says that they went down into the water and then came up out of the water. That is a far cry from sprinkling. Add to that the definition of the Greek word "baptizo", which is defined as immersion, dipping, etc., and nothing about sprinkling, and one can only come to the conclusion that baptism of total immersion is taught by the scriptures.

Look up the meaning of the Greek words translated "into" and "out of". Personal immersion is not implied. How he baptised him is not stated.

It is impossible to be "buried" into the death of Jesus through baptism by sprinkling. It's like saying that you can bury somebody who is dead by sprinkling some dirt on him. If you do that, there will still be a lot of the body exposed, thus it's not buried. When you bury somebody, they are completely hidden from view. That's why when you go to a graveyard ALL you see are tombstones, and nothing of the person's actual body.

As the burial is symbolic, a token sprinkling with earth, (as is done at funerals by relatives) is commital to the earth.
For the subject to kneel, to be sprinkled with water using cupped hands or a vessel dipped in water, and to stand ond confess Christ, does show identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. We're not play acting, we are declaring by the Word of the Gospel, and the Covenant sign what Christ has done for sinners, and the one baptised in particular.

Baptism by immersion may be more graphic, and I'm not arguing against immersion, but does not show the "sprinkled blood" significance. Or the outpouring of the Holy Spirit significance as in the case of Cornelius.

Now, I've just shown you a verse that shows a person being baptized by going down into the water and coming up out of the water, completely supporting immersion, as it's defined in the Greek. My question to you is this: Can you show me a verse in the New Testament that says we can be baptized by having our bodies "sprinkled" with water?

Hebrews 9:13-14. 1 Peter 1:2.

I'm arguing that the mode of baptism is not important. THe important things are the SUBJECT, a believer baptised into CHrist by the Holy Spirit, and the SIGNIFICANCE, the saving and cleansing blood of Christ.

Before you reply, try to understand the argument FOR sprinkling. I know the arguments for immersion, I was baptised by immersion after my conversion 44 years ago, and since then have only seen baptisms by immersion.

 

[Ian Day]

THe arguments in John 3.

Note first that "born again" is more accurately translated "from above". We are talking about becoming a child of God.

Young's Literal Translation reads:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus his name, a ruler of the Jews,
2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.'
3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'
5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'
9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, `How are these things able to happen?'
10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel -- and these things thou dost not know!
11 `Verily, verily, I say to thee -- What we have known we speak, and what we have seen we testify, and our testimony ye do not receive;
12 if the earthly things I said to you, and ye do not believe, how, if I shall say to you the heavenly things, will ye believe?

It is reasonable to think that that as a Pharisee, Nicodemus had refused John's baptism, & Jesus referred to "born of water" as referring to his disobedience. His refusal to repent. I don't think the argument about whether it refers to water baptism or human birth can be resolved for sure.

In any case, John spoke of Christ baptising with the Holy Spirit. Jesus speaks of being "born of the Spirit."

What is all-important is being born of the Spirit, from above, and having new, spiritual life. Water baptism is symbolic, but of the real, Spiritual baptism into CHrist.

The reason for water baptism is that the subject has been born of the Spirit, from above, and shows a real repentance. Water baptism without being born of the Spirit is worthless. Water baptism of the born-from-above believer is significant of all that Christ has done for him.

 

[Freak]

Evangelion,

Please keep your posts to a reasonable length. Thank you. They tend to be very long.

Did you deal with points I made. I think not. Go back and deal with my points and then we'll discuss this issue systematically.

Thanks.

 

[Mathetes]

Ah, what have we here? It's Freak, running screaming in terror from my posts again. No surprise... You have to admire his consistency.

I just dealt with the issue of baptism in comprehensive and systematic detail. Deal with it.

You may wish to take it one post at a time. You should be able to manage that.

All of your arguments have been done and dusted. They are all essentially the same old heresy - that obedience to God is optional, and not what He requires of us.

 

[tralon]

Is one born again by water baptism?

Is one born again by water baptism?

No, and no again.Simple water cannot possibly REGENERATE a soul to spiritual renewal to God.The word BORN in the greek means REGENERATE or bring to life.Only the word of God it self and the power of the Holy Spirit can create spiritual life.When Jesus was refering to being born of water in John 3:5 he was refering to the SPIRITUAL water of the Holy spirit.For water in this verse is joined by a CONJUNCTION "and".Both water AND spirit are joined by this conjunction.This also parallels Ezek.36:25-26.Jesus knew Nicodemus was familiar with this passage and so Jesus said that he should know what he meant.

But say for the sake of arguement Jesus meant water baptism in John 3:5, which it definitly doesn't.This would mean a person becomes water baptised BEFORE the holy spirit acts in his life.Are sinners who have no indwelling of the Holy Spirit then to be water baptised? This would be like asking unsaved sinners to celebrate the Lord's supper.It would have no meaning whatsoever to them.

Also just what is the New Testament pattern concerning water baptism anyway? All throughout the book of Acts we find one BELIEVES before they are water baptised.And how does one come to believe? Only by the word of God and the moving of the Holy Spirit in that person's heart and life.This is the bible example.

So by scriptural comparison and greek definition the "water" in John 3:5 cannot possibly be construed to mean ritual baptism, but only the regeneration work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mathetes]

I am not arguing that the baptismal ritual effects a mental or moral change. I am arguing that it is the outward sign of an inward change.

But I see nothing in Scripture which says that we can ignore this commandment of Christ with impunity (are there any other commandments of Christ or God which you'd like to throw out while you're here?), and nothing which suggests a 'Holy Spirit regeneration' as you claim.

What I do find in Scripture is that the consistent practice of the apostles was the water baptism by full immersion of informed adult believers.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Kevin

You said:
We differ yet again . The water is not speaking about the water of the womb, because ,again, verse 5 is an answer to a question asked about how one can be born again. Because this verse is an answer (it even starts with "Jesus answered") to the question of how to be born again, crawling up into our mother's womb as an adult isn't the answer. Water means water, and Spirit means Spirit.

Reply:
The verse is an answer, you must be "born" and then "born" again.

You said:
So, from these two verses, one who is baptized into Christ is "in Christ". And one who is "in Christ" is a "new creation". That "new creation" is in somebody who is dead to sin (Rom. 6:6) and walks in the newness of life (Rom. 6:4), hence being born again... which is exactly what Jesus is talking about in John 3:5- being born into a new creation.

Reply:
Those are great verses but "water" is not mentioned Roms. 6 and if "water" baptism was a required work it is only reasonable "water" would be found in the context but it is "NOT" there!

As I said before:
If we read Romans 5 we can see how we are baptized into his death. You say it is by obeying in water baptism but this is not what Paul said.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom. 5:1 (KJV)
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:2 (KJV)

Faith is required not water baptism which you agreed was a "work". If a work is required then salvation must be earned.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Rom. 5:9 (KJV)

We are justified by His blood and the only way that can be received is by faith.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5:15 (KJV)

We can not add to the finished work of Christ and this "gift" must be received "freely" or it is no longer a gift.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:19 (KJV)

It is not "our" obedience but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be "free".

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3 (KJV)

Notice that it says baptized "into Jesus" not into "water". How are we to get into Jesus?...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom. 6:4 (KJV)

Here it says "into death" not "water" . In other words when we are baptized by the Spirit we are in His body and we died with Him and it is received through "faith".

You said:
Now there's the born of the womb part that you are looking for. Everybody is born of the womb. Everybody. And until people become "in Christ" through baptism (Gal. 3:27), they are of the flesh.

When a person becomes born again, through baptism (water and Spirit), they are reborn, spiritually. They are a new creature. They are of the Spirit instead of being of the flesh.

Reply:
I agree with you about Gal.3:27 and I noticed when you referred to baptism you left out "water" as did the verse! No, water is not required to be "born again". John 3:5 says "born of water" not reborn of water. You cannot continually "add" words to scripture that clearly are "NOT" there and call it truth!

As I said before:
Jesus replies, except a man is born of water (womb) and Spirit (born) he can not enter heaven. Let me say it another way, Jesus said "born" of water and that is what he meant "born" of water not "born again" or "reborn" of water and it is understood that "born" applies to "of the Spirit" not "born again" or "reborn" of the Spirit. These are two "borns" not one born again. You can argue that until the day you die but the verse will remain the same. This verse in no way proves "reborn of water"!

You said:
Not a problem. Here's the proof. Since you think the Acts 2:38 is the same baptism that John the Baptist performed, let's look at an example of each:

Reply:
They were the same "remission of sins" as I stated. Do you disagree?

You said:
Matt. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

It is clear from this verse that one would not recieve the Holy Spirit as a result of his baptism (John's). After all, he said that He who comes after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit. So again, people baptized into this baptism would not recieve the Holy Spirit.

Reply:
It is clear we see the contrast of water baptism and Spirit baptism. John says....I baptize with water but (on the contrary) He will baptize with the Holy Ghost.

You said:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, AND YOU SHALL RECIEVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

In this baptism, people received the gift of the Holy Spirit. In John's baptism, they didn't. Two different baptisms. One that saves, one that doesn't. The baptism of Jesus one that saves and is the "one baptism" spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

Now that I have shown that the baptism of Jesus gives one the gift of the Holy Spirt, I will demonstrate again that the baptism of Jesus includes water:

Reply:
You "imply" that one must be baptized in water "baptism of Jesus" as you call it before you can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Wrong again! Cornelius was water baptized after he received the Holy Ghost. It is clear your "baptism of Jesus" does not "give" the Holy Ghost. You cannot "add" water to Ephesians 4:5, it's NOT there.

You said:
Acts 8:35-36: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

This is the baptism of Jesus (verse 35). After all, why would somebody preach Jesus and then baptize into another? The fact that the eunuch asked "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" proves that Phillip instructed baptism with water, or why would the enuch mention water at all? Phillip was instructing the eunuch about baptism, and it inlcudes water.

Reply;
There is no "baptism of Jesus" but (on the contrary) John the Baptist said He (Jesus) will baptize with the Holy Ghost. I do not argue that Phillip baptized with water but that is was the same baptism for "remission of sins" as John's or Peter's. Spirit baptism can not be performed by "man" but it is an operation of God.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Cor. 5:17 (KJV)
And "ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD", who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 2 Cor. 5:18 (KJV)

You said:
The baptism of Jesus consists of being baptized in water and then that person will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. Water and Spirit... just like John 3:5 states. Remember, we cant be born again into a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17) unless we are "in Christ". And we become "in Christ" through baptism (Gal. 3:27).

How can one make it to heaven without being born again into a new creation and becoming dead to sin? You can't. The only way to achieve those things is to be "in Christ" ... by being "baptized into Christ." (Gal 3:27)

Reply:
The "baptism of Jesus" as you put it is "He will baptize with the Holy Ghost". By one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body is the "one" baptism in Ephesians. We are warned not to "add" to the word of God and that includes Gal 3:27. You continual use of references that do not include "water" as prooftext for "water" baptism is beyond reason. They do not prove "water" baptism is required or better to say......YOU HAVE NO PROOF!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terminology "baptism of Jesus" that you continue to use is not biblical...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You said:
Err... what would you like me to call it? The "baptism where one is baptized into Christ" as in Galations 3:27? If someone is "baptized into Christ" it is the baptism of Jesus.

Reply:
I would like to call it as John the Baptist was "inspired" to call it..."He will baptize with the Holy Ghost".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Gen. 17:10 (KJV)

Kevin, pssst, that verse is from the Holy Bible do you believe it applies to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You said:
Before I answer this, I would like to sincerely apologize for my "pssst" remark. It was uncalled for, and I ask for your forgivness. I can see that I didn't edit it out in time. My apologies.

Reply:
Apology accepted.

You said:
The answer to this is, no. We do not have to become circumcised. How do I know this? Because circumcision was done away with in the old law. The book of Galations covers that very thing.

Reply:
I agree, the message has changed and has been progressively revealed to God's people who are now the body of Christ.

Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. John 5:33 (KJV)
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have GREATER WITNESS than that of John: for THE WORKS WHICH THE FATHER HATH GIVEN ME TO FINISH, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)

You said:
Now, if you can show me somewhere that says that disobedient people will have access to the tree of life, then I will withdraw my stress on the importance of obedience. God expected to be obeyed in the Old Testament, and He certainly expects to be obeyed in the New Testament.

Reply:
If you are a member of the body of Christ you will not need the tree of life because you are perfected in His body.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph. 4:13 (KJV)

 

[Freak]

Evangelion,

Let's try this again.

Where is baptism mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 where Paul reminded the believers of the Gospel. Did Paul make a mistake? I think not.

Please refer to Ephesian 1:13, 4:30, where Paul makes it clear that receiving of the Holy Spirit is by faith alone not by baptism. Will be awaiting for your response.

 

[SteveT]

Here's the early church's understanding of this question, from Justin Martyr's First Apology, circa AD150 (i.e., within living memory of the Apostle John):

"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.127 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above;128 he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."129

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed."

 

[Antipas]

Freak avoids the question 3 times

Freak avoids the question 3 times

Kevin,

Let's try one more time.

In 1 Cor. chapter 15 (not verse 15 as you wrongly assumed), but chapter 15, did the Apostle Paul mention baptism when we reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

Why don't you respond to Kevin's question? This is the third time that you've avoided it.


Antipas

 

[tralon]

To Steve T-Were the church fathers Apostles?

To Steve T-Were the church fathers Apostles?

I realize many of the early church fathers subscribed to baptism regeneration.And this SAME practice is still carried on in the Roman Catholic Church today.But the question is, "Does this harmonize with what the Apostles of the bible taught?"

If this was the popular way to be saved in Apostolic times, then WHY don't we find one verse by the Apostle Paul that we need to be water baptised, as well as believe in Jesus to be REALLY saved? Where is that verse Steve? Don't say Paul didn't have time to mention it, because the theme of salvation was Paul's chief message? Also if water baptism was mandatory for salvation, then WHY did Paul say God has NOT CALLED ME TO BAPTISE, but to preach the gospel? I Cor.1:17 If water baptism was NECESSARY for one's salvation then Paul WOULD HAVE said God INDEED has called me to baptise and preach the gospel.But he didn't say that Steve, and that is the whole point.

Paul clearly said that after his departure or death FALSE TEACHERS would arise deceiving many.He said to be alert for them.Acts 20:29-32 Therefore if any person, no matter how famous, how noble, how eloguent, how humble or how knowledgeable teach you ANY OTHER GOSPEL than what PAUL TAUGHT they are a FALSE PROPHET and are accursed.Gal 1:8-9.

Steve TRUST IN THE BIBLE and ONLY the bible.For there lies your truth and not the writings of philosophers.Trust ONLY in Jesus.For you could be baptised in the Pacific ocean 20,000 fathoms deep and you still come out a WET SINNER.It's Jesus that saves you and nothing else.John 3:16

 

[SteveT]

Tralon:

Who do you think better understood what John meant when he quoted Jesus saying "You must be born of water and the spirit...", the people who listened to him preach and worked by his side for decades until his death, or you reading a handful of his works 2,000 years later?

Why did Paul go around baptizing people, if he didn't believe it was necessary? In the very passage you cited,

"I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) "

Why did Paul baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?

You said "I realize many of the early church fathers subscribed to baptism regeneration..." That is not true. ALL of the early church fathers subscribed to baptismal regeneration. NONE of the early church fathers taught that "water" in John 3 referred to amniotic fluid.

You said, "WHY don't we find one verse by the Apostle Paul that we need to be water baptised?" But of course, others have already given you Romans 6:2-3. You insist that this "baptism" isn't "water baptism", but "spirit baptism". As the passage from Justin shows, however, if that distinction were intended by the Apostle, it was completely lost within a generation of his death and not recovered until your theologians "found" it a few hundred years ago. Yes, Paul warned about false teachers deceiving many, but he also said the church would be the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). There's a big difference between saying the false teachers would deceive many, and saying they would deceive the entire church for a millenia or two.

 

[Ian Day]

Mathetes, Evangelion & any other cute kittens,

I am not arguing that the baptismal ritual effects a mental or moral change. I am arguing that it is the outward sign of an inward change.

But I see nothing in Scripture which says that we can ignore this commandment of Christ with impunity (are there any other commandments of Christ or God which you'd like to throw out while you're here?), and nothing which suggests a 'Holy Spirit regeneration' as you claim.

What I do find in Scripture is that the consistent practice of the apostles was the water baptism by full immersion of informed adult believers.

I'm glad you agree that baptism is an outside sign of an inward change. You seem to be maintaining that the inward change takes place when the outward sign is applied. And without the outward sign, the inward change is in doubt, because salvation requires obedience, and obedience requires baptism.

What I (& I think others) maintain is that the inward change, regeneration, being born again, from above by the Holy Spirit, MUST have taken place before baptism is carried out, otherwise there is no grounds for baptism. We baptise believers. We don't make believers by baptism.

Baptism is a sign of entry into the New Covenant by the blood of Jesus, a sign of death to sin & rising to live a new life in Christ, of the cleansing of the conscience by the applied blood of the sacrifice, of washing from sin, of being united with Christ and membership of his body and thus active membership of the church, etc.

A believer who refuses baptism may find the privileges of church membership refused. He may decline believers' baptism because he understands that his infant baptism was a covenant baptism analogous to circumcision, and therefore a valid baptism.

Whether believers' baptism is by sprinkling or immersion is a matter of church practice & understanding. We can disagree on that point.

[Mathetes]
But I see nothing in Scripture which ...... suggests a 'Holy Spirit regeneration' as you claim.

See:
John 3:3 (Young) Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'
5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

Please note that Jesus does not begin by telling Nicodemus "You must be born of water and the Spirit." He begins by telling him he needs to be born from above. It is only in response to Nicodemus's objection that Jesus refers to "born of water."

If you are "born from above, of the Spirit" then you are "born of God" and a right subject for baptism.

See also:
Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 

[Mathetes]

Re: To Steve T-Were the church fathers Apostles?

Re: To Steve T-Were the church fathers Apostles?

Tralon, I think you're missing the point...

I realize many of the early church fathers subscribed to baptism regeneration.And this SAME practice is still carried on in the Roman Catholic Church today.But the question is, "Does this harmonize with what the Apostles of the bible taught?"

Actually, I didn't see baptismal regeneration there. What I saw was baptism in obedience to the commandment of Christ.
But anyway...

The fact of the matter is that the first century Christians practiced the full immersion of informed adult believers - baptism.

How many examples would you like? They're all through the Acts of the apostles. How do you explain this? Why did they do it? Did they do wrong? What is your answer?

Secondly, the Didache (a first century witness to the earliest doctrines and practices of the Christian community), states specifically that the practice was the full immersion of informed adult believers - baptism. No mention is made of the water 'changing' you or 'regenerating' you, because it doesn't. That's not the argument I'm making.

If this was the popular way to be saved in Apostolic times, then WHY don't we find one verse by the Apostle Paul that we need to be water baptised, as well as believe in Jesus to be REALLY saved?

Do you know that Paul was baptized? Yes, it was insisted on:

Acts 22:
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

So what do the apostles have to say? What did they do?

Paul:

Acts 16:
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Galatians 3:
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Peter:

Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

That's pretty clear.

Where is that verse Steve? Don't say Paul didn't have time to mention it, because the theme of salvation was Paul's chief message?

When the foundation doctrines of the apostles are expounded, baptism is always there:

Peter says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 2:38

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 3:19,26

Philip says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 8:36-38 (Isa. 53:10)

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 10:36,37,43,47,48

Paul says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 13:24,38,39 (Psa. 2:12; Isa. 55:6,7)

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 17:30

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 26:18,20

But perhaps you can explain the circumstances in which Cornelius was baptized?

cts 10:
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

I’ve highlighted the two most important phrases, and it’s not hard to see why they are important:

Can any man forbid water?

He commanded them to be baptized.

Firstly, we see that the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’, if this is what our christian friend wishes to argue, did not prevent the baptism of water. In fact, it was insufficient without it.

Secondly, we see that Peter commands baptism, even after these individuals have been ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit’, as you would say.

Also if water baptism was mandatory for salvation, then WHY did Paul say God has NOT CALLED ME TO BAPTISE, but to preach the gospel? I Cor.1:17 If water baptism was NECESSARY for one's salvation then Paul WOULD HAVE said God INDEED has called me to baptise and preach the gospel.But he didn't say that Steve, and that is the whole point.

You omitted the verses in which Paul specifically states that he did baptize people. Why did you do that? Paul's entire argument here is against the factionalism which had arisen within the Corinthian ecclesia, and he makes that clear. Certain brethren and sisters thought they were better than others, and were choosing to identify themselves with the individuals who had taught and baptized them, rather than with Christ.

Paul states most emphatically that he only baptized a few people (and why did he baptize them?), and furthermore that the gospel is not just baptism, but much more besides. He had been sent to preach the gospel, not just to get people wet - for without the gospel, baptism means nothing.

Paul clearly said that after his departure or death FALSE TEACHERS would arise deceiving many.He said to be alert for them.Acts 20:29-32 Therefore if any person, no matter how famous, how noble, how eloguent, how humble or how knowledgeable teach you ANY OTHER GOSPEL than what PAUL TAUGHT they are a FALSE PROPHET and are accursed.Gal 1:8-9.

Yes, but he said they would be disobedient to God's commandments, he said they would be abusers of the liberty in Christ, and he never once said that the hallmark of a false teacher was that they commandmed baptism.

 

[Mathetes]

I'm glad you agree that baptism is an outside sign of an inward change. You seem to be maintaining that the inward change takes place when the outward sign is applied.

I am by no means arguing that the inward change takes place when the outward sign is applied. I am arguing that the proof of the inward change is the outward sign.

Why do I say this? Because repentance is our verbal and moral committment to turn from a life of sin and obey God. If the very next thing we say is 'Oh, but by the way, I refuse to be baptized, despite the fact that it has been commanded', then there has been no change. That's not obedience, that's rank disobedience, and clearly this individual is both unrepentant and unregenerate.

I find this absolutely incredible. We have been asked to repent and be baptized, and people will stubbornly refuse to submit to a 2 minute bath. I don't understand this at all. It's such a little thing, but so significant. If someone won't even obey this least of commandments, it's obvious that they're going to treat the rest of God's commandments with the same arbitrary contempt.

I used to really find it difficult to understand why Naaman in the Old Testament refused to immerse himself in the river Jordan as Elijah had commanded. It was such an insignificant thing, I thought that it would be ludicrous for anyone to object. Having spent years debating with the anti-baptism people, I now understand...

And without the outward sign, the inward change is in doubt, because salvation requires obedience, and obedience requires baptism.

Without obedience to God, repentance is in doubt. End of story.

What I (& I think others) maintain is that the inward change, regeneration, being born again, from above by the Holy Spirit, MUST have taken place before baptism is carried out, otherwise there is no grounds for baptism. We baptise believers. We don't make believers by baptism.

If your Holy Spirit argument was at all Scriptural, I might consider it. As it is, you make no argument whatsoever.

Nowhere do we find that baptism is the confirmation of 'instant salvation - just add water!'. Nowhere do we find that the 'regeneration' of the mind has been performed for us by the Holy Spirit. This nonsense started very recently, with the Christian mystics of the last 2 centuries. It's amazing how it's caught on.

Baptism is a sign of entry into the New Covenant by the blood of Jesus, a sign of death to sin & rising to live a new life in Christ, of the cleansing of the conscience by the applied blood of the sacrifice, of washing from sin, of being united with Christ and membership of his body and thus active membership of the church, etc.

Yes. So why do people treat it with contempt and refuse to be baptized?

A believer who refuses baptism may find the privileges of church membership refused. He may decline believers' baptism because he understands that his infant baptism was a covenant baptism analogous to circumcision, and therefore a valid baptism.

This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with 'church membership'. I know of no church which penalises individuals for not being baptized. As for infant baptism, that's so patently a heresy that it's not even worth considering. But if you want to debate it, we can.

Whether believers' baptism is by sprinkling or immersion is a matter of church practice & understanding. We can disagree on that point.

I'm afraid not. Read Romans 6 and tell me if you bury someone by throwing a handful of dirt at them, or by placing them inside a tomb (or inside a hole in the ground).

Please note that Jesus does not begin by telling Nicodemus "You must be born of water and the Spirit." He begins by telling him he needs to be born from above. It is only in response to Nicodemus's objection that Jesus refers to "born of water."

Of course the regeneration of the mind is of critical importance.
There is no doubt about that. But Christ also commanded water baptism. He even submitted to water baptism. How can you deny this? How can you even explain it?

If you are "born from above, of the Spirit" then you are "born of God" and a right subject for baptism.

That is not what Christ said. That is not found anywhere in Scripture.

See also:
Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Unfortunately, this does not prove your case. It makes specific mention of the washing of regeneration and the Holy Spirit. As the example of Cornelius proves, not only did the gift of the Holy Spirit not preclude water baptism, it was inadequate without it.

 

[JustAChristian]

Let's try this again.

Did Paul mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15 where he reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

Very simple question. Yet for some odd reason you avoid it.

Again the Gospel is centered on the person of Christ not an act that involves water. Though baptism is important (ever believer needs to be baptized). It is NOT however a part of the Gospel message, it is merely a response to the Gospel.

Paul stated very clearly justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). Justification is not by baptism as you wrongly claim. Yes, as a believer one should obey His commandments but not for salvation. That would be absurd since no human can keep any commandment without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. So, one first needs to be saved, then they will have the power to live a life of obedience.

Freak,
You are trying to limit the definition of "Gospel". All the Gospel is not just that which Paul wrote about in 1 Cor. 15. Paul had written to the Romans that "But they have not all obeyed the gospel" (Romans 10:16). Paul had not mentioned anything in 1 Cor 15 that must be obeyed. So, the Gospel contains more than what is in that chapter. There are things about the Gospel that must be obeyed. Peter also says this. Hear him, are you listening? "Judgement must begin at the house of God:and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God" (1 Peter 4:17). The Gospel means "good news" and how we can be saved in Christ. It pleased God by the preaching of the gospel to save them who believed it (1 Cor. 1:21). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Truly, we must conclude, that if a person is saved, he is saved because he heard, believed and obeyed the Gospel (Rom. 1:16; Romans 10:17; Mark 16:15-16). Done short change yourself and harbor a false conclusion. The gospel is through the writings of the apostles and inspired messengers of the New Testament. It is not just in 1 Cor. 15. O, by the way, Paul did mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15. Read on down where he talks about some who were baptizing some for the dead.

JustAChristian